"My Descent into the Alt-Right Pipeline" Good video on internet radicalisation.

[Andreas]

3 minutes ago, Key Elements said:

I'm just going to say this. Maybe it helps. Maybe it doesn't. It doesn't really matter.

@Andreas You took me by surprise when you used that adjective "cultish" on me. It's not because it's your opinion or whatever reason. It's because when I was having a discussion with Leo on this thread, I was actually disagreeing with Leo. Cult refers to strong (brainwashed) similarities, not differences.

I attacked your argument, not you. I apologize if I offended you in any way. I used the word "cultish" to try to refer to a spectrum, not the black and white definition of a cult. To me, your argument represented a general theme of what I call toxic femininity. 

[Adam M]

@Andreas

@Serotoninluv

took the time to write a very sincere and personal message to you that was very insightful 

Please, at this point I would like to kindly ask you to leave this forum as you are no longer contributing to any type of productive discussion.

Peace and love you to my friend ❤

[now is forever]

4 minutes ago, Andreas said:

I attacked your argument, not you. I apologize if I offended you in any way. I used the word "cultish" to try to refer to a spectrum, not the black and white definition of a cult. To me, your argument represented a general theme of what I call toxic femininity. 

i don’t attac you or something, but your argumentation represents what is generally called toxic masculinity.

by the way i did not do it! it was rationality.

Edited April 24, 2019 by now is forever

[Key Elements]

4 minutes ago, Andreas said:

I attacked your argument, not you. I apologize if I offended you in any way. I used the word "cultish" to try to refer to a spectrum, not the black and white definition of a cult. To me, your argument represented a general theme of what I call toxic femininity. 

Good luck in trying to understand whatever it is you're trying to understand. To be very honest, you did not understand my argument with Leo. It has nothing to do with feminine or not.

[Forestluv]

@Andreas I can see how it can look like that. Yet it’s not just some mysterious “out there” state of consciousness. On another thread you showed interest in genetics. I’ve spent 25 years studying, researching and teaching genetics at a University. I could have cleared up a lot of your misconceptions. You could have elevated your knowledge and understanding greatly. Yet took a defensive and turned it into a “you vs. me” dynamic and tried to talk me down without having taken a high school genetics course and you think you have good understanding after watching a partially accurate YT video and misinterpreting quotes in tertiary news sources. I could have taught you the stuff you are into - objective scientific genetics. Yet you were closed-minded and dismissive. It’s not about woo woo ideas on actualized. You have a closed mind that is rigid and not curious. I’ve taught science to over 1,000 students and I’m telling you that you aren't teachable - in anything. Spirituality, genetics - whatever. You seem to have a lot of intellectual potential, yet have some blocks to get past.  

[Andreas]

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Andreas I can see how it can look like that. Yet it’s not just some mysterious “out there” state of consciousness. On another thread you showed interest in genetics. I’ve spent 25 years studying, researching and teaching genetics at a University. I could have cleared up a lot if your misconceptions. You could have elevated your knowledge and understanding greatly. Yet took a defensive and turned it into a “you vs. me” dynamic and tried to talk me down without having taken a high school genetics course and think you have great understanding after watching a partially accurate 8 min YT video and misinterpreting quotes in tertiary news sources. I could have taught you the stuff you are into - objective scientific genetics. Yet you were closed-minded and dismissive. It’s not about woo woo ideas on actualized. You have a closed mind that is rigid and not curious. I’ve taught science to over 1,000 students and I’m telling you that you aren't teachable - in anything. Spirituality, genetics - whatever. 

Yes. My point being, there are professors with the same level of status disagreeing with your opinion. To me, their point makes more sense. I was mostly trying to figure out how I was wrong. 

Yet again, the theme of showing why YOU are wrong. Not why your argument or your opinion is wrong. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Andreas

[now is forever]

8 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Yes. My point being, there are professors with the same level of status disagreeing with your opinion. To me, their point makes more sense. I was mostly trying to figure out how I was wrong. 

Yet again, the theme of showing why YOU are wrong. Not why your argument or your opinion is wrong. 

did you really ever try to figure out where you are wrong? instead of trying to say all others are wrong but you are right because your emotions/rationality said so? quoting a professor doesn’t make you the professor.

if the professor wants to learn from you then it makes you the teacher of the professor but if he doesn’t there is no chance for you to be the teacher of the professor. either you then learn from the professor or just stay dumb, all your choice.

Edited April 24, 2019 by now is forever

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Andreas said:

If this is such a great and advanced truth, why is it so that only you understand but not the greatest mathematicians working in number theory?

Not just I understand it. Thousands of people do. But most mathematicians don't because they don't question metaphysics. Their entire pursuit is conceptual.

Quote

Are they just too unconscious?

Yes

Mathematical skill has little to do with one's level of consciousness.

Quote

Why should I, from my perspective, spend what seems like a very long time to try to figure out a question not even the greatest mathematicians know the answer to?

If you don't care to know, then you will remain ignorant. Reality has no obligation to make itself known to lazy people.

Quote

Can you see how this might be perceived as cultlike behaviour?

Yes, from your perspective I sound dangerous, deluded, and crazy.

49 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Then why is it not wrong to say that there is no such thing as Santa Claus if some kid tells me so? Am I being unconscious?  

That is a relative truth.

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Yes. My point being, there are professors with the same level of status disagreeing with your opinion. 

No they were not. It appears like this to you because you don’t understand what they and ai are saying. You have set this up as a confrontation of beliefs. This is one of your misconceptions I tried to help you understand this. Trust me, after 25 years of study, this these concepts are incredibly basic. I could easily explain it to you in minutes. I tried for over an hour. You are not open minded and curious. You turned it into a confrontation and war of beliefs. We are not opponents. It’s not me vs you. We are in the same team. I don’t want to argue and win, I wanted to help you learn about genetics - yet I can’t because you are stuck in irrational ideas that I disagree with other geneticists. 

[Andreas]

2 minutes ago, now is forever said:

did you really ever try to figure out where you are wrong? instead of trying to say all others are wrong but you are right because your emotions/rationality said so? quoting a professor doesn’t make you the professor.

As I said, I was trying to figure out why I was wrong. Quoting a professor is where I got the information from to begin with, that is the reason I believed it. Quoting a professor is apparently necessary because of this style of argument we are having here. 90% of our arguments are in the context of ethos. 

[now is forever]

3 minutes ago, Andreas said:

As I said, I was trying to figure out why I was wrong. Quoting a professor is where I got the information from to begin with, that is the reason I believed it. Quoting a professor is apparently necessary because of this style of argument we are having here. 90% of our arguments are in the context of ethos. 

therefore it would be nice to understand that there is something that makes rationality a blown out egg if you substract the egg from the shell. that’s where the devil likes to find itself in, it’s really comfy isn’t it?

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Andreas said:

As I said, I was trying to figure out why I was wrong. Quoting a professor is where I got the information from to begin with, that is the reason I believed it. Quoting a professor is apparently necessary because of this style of argument we are having here. 90% of our arguments are in the context of ethos. 

You weren’t quoting a professor. You were mainly quoting a chiropractor with surface level understanding of genetics. And as I’ve said many times, I agreed with the key points, yet your main problem was extrapolating that inappropriately. Yet it’s like once you make a statement, you are unable to update it for some reason. You are defending beliefs simply to defend beliefs to be right. That is a huge barrier to learning. You are literally refusing to learn. You would rather argue than learn.

[Andreas]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

No they were not. This is one of your misconceptions I tried to help you understand this. Trust me, after 25 years of study, this these concepts are incredibly basic. I could easily explain it to you in minutes. I tried for over an hour. You are not open minded and curious. You turned it into a confrontation and war of beliefs. We are not opponents. It’s not me vs you. We are in the same team. I don’t want to argue and win, I wanted to help you learn about genetics - yet I can’t because you are stuck in irrational ideas that I disagree with other geneticists. 

As I said, I was disagreeing with your opinion. I did not turn anything into a confrontation. I was trying to figure out how what I cited is wrong. I was not telling you that you are wrong because of X, I was trying to figure out why what you think what you think. In my view the evidence speaks for itself. 

[now is forever]

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii?

i is the evidence.

Edited April 24, 2019 by now is forever

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, Andreas said:

As I said, I was disagreeing with your opinion. I did not turn anything into a confrontation. I was trying to figure out how what I cited is wrong. I was not telling you that you are wrong because of X, I was trying to figure out why what you think what you think. In my view the evidence speaks for itself. 

First, it’s not my “opinion”, it is established scientific concepts with a consensus in the genetics community. 

I didn’t say you turned it into a confrontation of personalities. You turned it into a confrontation of ideas. Ideas you don’t understand. And you were not interested in learning about your misconception. I spent over an hour trying to explain it to you. It’s actually quite simple, yet you became highly defensive of pre-conceived beliefs and refused to learn. You learned nothing. You are still repetitively repeating the same  things in the other forum. 

Do you want to learn or be right?  If you want to learn, you will need some humility and open mindedness.

[Andreas]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You weren’t quoting a professor. You were mainly quoting a chiropractor with surface level understanding of genetics. And as I’ve said many times, I agreed with the key points, yet your main problem was extrapolating that inappropriately. Yet it’s like once you make a statement, you are unable to update it for some reason. You are defending beliefs simply to defend beliefs to be right. That is a huge barrier to learning. You are literally refusing to learn. You would rather argue than learn.

I quoted an assistant professor which you seemed to agree with. You were pointing out that the guy is a chiropractor which I responded to. I agreed with you and called him irrelevant. I am arguing in terms of what I personally believe is right, if someone does that back we get into a discussion and try to figure out who is right. Not how to "win".

Very different from yourself. Constantly attacking for being closeminded, unconscious, a devil etc. You have still not addressed my point about actualized.org, but continue to focus on a different thread with a different topic in order to make me look unconscious, which in return makes my point about actualized.org weaker. 

[now is forever]

2 minutes ago, Andreas said:

I quoted an assistant professor which you seemed to agree with. You were pointing out that the guy is a chiropractor which I responded to. I agreed with you and called him irrelevant. I am arguing in terms of what I personally believe is right, if someone does that back we get into a discussion and try to figure out who is right. Not how to "win".

Very different from yourself. Constantly attacking for being closeminded, unconscious, a devil etc. You have still not addressed my point about actualized.org, but continue to focus on a different thread with a different topic in order to make me look unconscious, which in return makes my point about actualized.org weaker. 

what is winning? finding out who is right is not about winning, no! there is no who in science did you forget? evidence stands for evidence not the person who brings evidence.

Edited April 24, 2019 by now is forever

[Andreas]

Just now, now is forever said:

what is winning? finding out who is right is not about winning, no! there is no who in science did you forget?

Did not forget that, that's why I used it in quotation marks. I was implying the opposite. 

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Andreas said:

I am arguing in terms of what I personally believe is right, if someone does that back we get into a discussion and try to figure out who is right. Not how to "win".

You are not listening to me.

[Andreas]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

You are not listening to me. 

Well in your context that is true. If I was not listening to you I would keep disagreeing with you while you hold the truth.

In my context it's just the opposite. You are not listening to me and this makes it challenging to get a point across. Constantly having to defend myself, not the meaning of my statements.